Top News Headlines 9th Apr 2022: Trial Courts Cannot Impose Life Sentence With Or Without Remission Except In Rape Cases

Trial Courts Cannot Impose Life Sentence With Or Without Remission Except In Rape Cases: Calcutta HC

• In Monirul Molla vs State of West Bengal the Hon’ble Calcutta HC has held that a sentence of imprisonment for life without the possibility of remission can only be granted by the trial Courts in rape cases and no others.
• The Court was hearing an appeal against a conviction for murder and offences under the Arms Act, where one of the appellants was sentenced to imprisonment for life until death. While upholding the conviction, the Hon’ble HC held that such sentences can only be imposed by the Supreme Court or the High Courts while commuting a sentence of death to that of imprisonment for life.
• The Court relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India vs V. Sriharan alias Murugram and ors and Gauri Shankar vs State of Punjab and observed that except for cases where the law provides for a sentence of imprisonment for life, which means imprisonment till the remainder of that person’s natural life, as is provided in sections 376A, 376AB, 376D, 376DA, 376DB and 376E of IPC, trial Courts while imposing a sentence of life imprisonment as is provided in section 53 IPC, cannot qualify the said sentence by adding that the sentence shall continue till the remainder of that person’s natural life. 
• The HC had observed that it had noted that in a number of cases, the trial Courts have been sentencing the accused persons to imprisonment for life without the possibility of remission, and this is why it felt the need to issue a practice direction to all the judicial officers in the State so that they do not commit the same error in the coming future. 
• The High Court’s Registrar General was directed to circulate the directive to all the Judicial Officers in the State for intimation and due adherence in the future. 
• However, the HC also noted that the Court’s discretion would not encroach upon the constitutional powers of the President and the Governor under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution.

Man Hid His Sexuality From His Wife; Thane Court Denies Anticipatory Bail

• Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh Gupta, while rejecting the anticipatory bail application filed by a man facing a case for cheating and forgery for allegedly concealing his employment status and sexuality from his wife, Judge Rajesh Gupta stated that, in addition to financial losses, the future of a young girl had been negatively affected due to the material suppression.
• In the present case, the married couple had started living separately just after three months of their marriage. This was because the accused had refused to consummate the wedding on the pretext of some disease. Furthermore, it was contended by the wife that disclosed that the accused was interested in homosexuality and was gay as she had discovered some WhatsApp conversations in which the accused had discussed their sexual life and was indulged in telephonic sex with his male partners. Moreover, it was claimed by the wife that to woo her, the accused had shown her a fake job offer letter of Rs.14 lakhs salary p.a. Therefore, the accused was charged under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. However, while challenging the claims, the accused sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC.
• Section 420 of the IPC talks about cheating by dishonesty, inducing a deceived person to do something. 
• Section 465 of the IPC provides the punishment for committing forgery. 
• Section 467 of the IPC talks about forgery of valuable security, will, etc.
• Section 468 of the IPC states that if a person commits forgery with the intent of cheating, they shall be penalized.
• Section 506 of the IPC states the punishment for criminal intimidation.
• Section 438 of CrPC states that if a person believes that he has been arrested for a non-bailable offense, he may apply to the court of sessions or HC for anticipatory bail.
• It was held in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc. vs State Of Punjab (1980) that the provisions of Section 438 of the CrPC should not be presumed of containing something sensitive that requires great care and diligence and that anticipatory bail is a prerequisite for achieving an individual's liberty; it is neither a ticket to committing crimes nor a defence against any type of allegations.
• After hearing both the parties, the Hon'ble Court held that even though the right to live with dignity is a fundamental right of every individual, no person should be given the freedom to tamper with another person's life. Furthermore, every individual has the right to live their life in the way they desire; however, their lifestyle should not cause damage to another person. In this case, the complainant had faced irreparable damage due to the accused's lies, and no monetary compensation could compensate for the damages faced by her. 
• Additionally, while referring to the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc Vs. State Of Punjab (1980), the Hon'ble Court, further held that the anticipatory bail was to be seen as a means to guarantee an individual's liberty and not as a bridge to perform the execution of crimes or as a shield against any type of allegation.
• Therefore, the application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Hon'ble Court.